Owning slaves a sin?

[Doc_Keele]

opus: one’s opus magnum…i.e., the final glorious post one makes on a message forum prior to leaving. Usually involves discussing how ridiculous and stupid the other members of the forum are and how superior the opus’ing poster is. “I have better things to do” is invariably part of such a post, in my experience.

An opus, of course, is invariably followed up by “don’t let the door hit you … on your way out” type responses.

Fascinating analysis…
Don’t know how stating that I have better things to do than read church documents has to do with this, but there you go:thumbsup:
Contrary to the opinions of some, I generally don’t find church documents very enlightening - there seems to be this perception that any misunderstandings/dissent must be due to the poster not having read church documents. not true at all

 

[BillP]

The most distinct being one is moral and one is not.

I believe the distinction is based on both the finite term of indentures (usually 7 years) and the fact that the servant retains some rights.

In the case of slavery, historically, the condition was resumed to be for the life of the slave (barring the generosity of the owner or other unusual circumstances). Additionally, slaves have few or no legal rights, and in nearly all cases are denied access to the machinery of law to enforce such rights.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Fascinating analysis…
Don’t know how stating that I have better things to do than read church documents has to do with this, but there you go:thumbsup:
Contrary to the opinions of some, I generally don’t find church documents very enlightening - there seems to be this perception that any misunderstandings/dissent must be due to the poster not having read church documents. not true at all

If you don’t agree with Church teaching by the Magisterium, you’re a catholic in name only. It’s one thing to disagree and say you do, but it’s a totally different thing to flout what seems very much to be pride in saying you don’t find them “enlightening”. It’s also an insult to true catholics on this catholic forum.

 

[markomalley]

Fascinating analysis…
Don’t know how stating that I have better things to do than read church documents has to do with this, but there you go:thumbsup:
Contrary to the opinions of some, I generally don’t find church documents very enlightening - there seems to be this perception that any misunderstandings/dissent must be due to the poster not having read church documents. not true at all

The point is that we can see what has been taught in the past about a whole multitude of subjects through examination of the applicable documents.

A whole lot of good hearted, but (IMHO) misguided, Catholic Christians would avoid a lot of problems if they understood and followed the teachings of the Church…both in the Scriptures and in what the Holy Fathers have taught in the past.

 

[Doc_Keele]

If you don’t agree with Church teaching by the Magisterium, you’re a catholic in name only. It’s one thing to disagree and say you do, but it’s a totally different thing to flout what seems very much to be pride in saying you don’t find them “enlightening”. It’s also an insult to true catholics on this catholic forum.

Let me see…
“flout”
“pride”
“insult”
Is there something about my response that is getting to you?
How can you be proud of something which you have no control over?
No pride involved at all actually, just disappointment.
I should have qualified my response by saying that encyclicals are often very inspiring, but I was referring to the documents like Theology of the Body that I presumed that kage ar was alluding to.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Let me see…
“flout”
“pride”
“insult”
Is there something about my response that is getting to you?
How can you be proud of something which you have no control over?
No pride involved at all actually, just disappointment.
I should have qualified my response by saying that encyclicals are often very inspiring, but I was referring to the documents like Theology of the Body that I presumed that kage ar was alluding to.

The bolded is what you are talking about that could bring scandal to others======>>>

The point is that we can see what has been taught in the past about a whole multitude of subjects through examination of the applicable documents.

A whole lot of good hearted, but (IMHO) misguided, Catholic Christians would avoid a lot of problems if they understood and followed the teachings of the Church…both in the Scriptures and in what the Holy Fathers have taught in the past.

Catholics do not only believe Scripture. We follow all of the Holy Spirit inspired infallible teachings of the Magisterium, not just ones we feel like following.

Kage’s point is exactly mine.

 

[puzzleannie]

Have you ever read Philemon…the whole thing is about a slave that he is returning to someone.

it never states Paul himself owned this person but that he was a disciple read the whole letter, please

also read the entire CCC citation which was given as first response, it fully answers your question. read every word, don’t just pick out a few

Paul’s instructions regarding slaves was given to Christians in an era where they themselves were being persecuted, had no civil law standing, and could not in any case influence civil law about slavery since the state was totalitarian. his teaching was how to treat slaves who wanted to become Christian, and the duty owed to slaves and other dependents of Christians, and that those distinctions were irrelevant among true followers of Christ.

 

[Newbie2]

Have you ever read Philemon…the whole thing is about a slave that he is returning to someone.

Yes I’ve read it. But I do not recall any passage that refers to Paul owning slaves. Please refresh my memory.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Catholics do not only believe Scripture. We follow all of the Holy Spirit inspired infallible teachings of the Magisterium, not just ones we feel like following

If the Holy Spirit has inspired these teachings, then their logic should be impeccable.

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

If the Holy Spirit has inspired these teachings, then their logic should be impeccable.

Infallable.

Is it contraception, which you dispute because of your position on/use of contraceptives?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Infallable

Does this include impeccable logic? Or being intrinsically infallible, does the logic not matter?

Is it contraception, which you dispute because of your position on/use of contraceptives?

What makes you think I use contraceptives?
My biggest issue is with the interpretation of intention etc with respect to the treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think when we talk about slavery we tend to think it is simple, and it isn’t.

How are we defining a slave? Someone who can be bought and sold? Someone with no rights? Limited rights? Is a serf or peasant tied to a particular piece of land or Lord a slave? What about economic slavery - say an illegal alien working in unsafe conditions for low wages without legal recourse? What about the working poor in the days before unions, say minors living in mining towns, shopping at the company store? Wal-mart employees? Are these people slaves if they have somehow brought this on themselves, say by committing crimes, or by insolvency?

The question is, what is the essence of slavery and what is the problem with that?

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

Does this include impeccable logic? Or being intrinsically infallible, does the logic not matter?

Logic is unnecessary, as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What makes you think I use contraceptives?

It’s very obvious that you object to a catholic teaching somewhere regarding Humanae Vitae.

My biggest issue is with the interpretation of intention etc with respect to the treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

Your biggest? You have others? Elective abortion is always wrong, regardless of intent. Trust and love of God’s will is the core issue here.

 

[rpp]

Ahem!!!

I thought thread was about the morality of owning slaves.

Back to the topic.

A good friend of mine had several discussions about this a number of weeks ago. I made an assertion that slavery was not intrinsically (that is at all times and in all circumstances) but rather is a modern evil. She, in return, said no, it is always and in all cases evil. On my part, I pointed to the Law of Moses which has many laws and regulations regarding slaves and does not outlaw salve holding.

My friend was unconvinced and brought up the subject of divorce. She correctly pointed out that the Law of Moses permits divorce and that Christ later clarified that when he said it was permitted because of the hardness of our hearts. That left me wondering.

I still do not know if it is always and at all times evil, but I will categorically say that in our modern world, it is a practical evil.

 

[hellopeople]

Ahem!!!

I thought thread was about the morality of owning slaves.

Back to the topic.

A good friend of mine had several discussions about this a number of weeks ago. I made an assertion that slavery was not intrinsically (that is at all times and in all circumstances) but rather is a modern evil. She, in return, said no, it is always and in all cases evil. On my part, I pointed to the Law of Moses which has many laws and regulations regarding slaves and does not outlaw salve holding.

My friend was unconvinced and brought up the subject of divorce. She correctly pointed out that the Law of Moses permits divorce and that Christ later clarified that when he said it was permitted because of the hardness of our hearts. That left me wondering.

I still do not know if it is always and at all times evil, but I will categorically say that in our modern world, it is a practical evil.

The word “slave” has a negative connotation nowadays because of the past few hundred years. It depends what you consider slavery. If a slave is held against their will, and they want to leave, and you do not let them, that is wrong. If you have a “slave” that you give food, shelter, and maybe some non essential things every once in a while in return for them working, and they completely agree to it and can leave at any time, then it is moral. But that isn’t really a slave, that is a servant who is working for you.

In my eyes, if a slave is forced to do work he or she does not want to do, and cannot just leave and quit, it is immoral. Even if the slave isn’t forced to do work they don’t want to do, but the master does not let them leave if they want to, it is immoral.

Basically, in my opinion, the only way a slave can be moral is if you are calling a servant a slave.

 

[rpp]

The word “slave” has a negative connotation nowadays because of the past few hundred years. It depends what you consider slavery. If a slave is held against their will, and they want to leave, and you do not let them, that is wrong. If you have a “slave” that you give food, shelter, and maybe some non essential things every once in a while in return for them working, and they completely agree to it and can leave at any time, then it is moral. But that isn’t really a slave, that is a servant who is working for you.

In my eyes, if a slave is forced to do work he or she does not want to do, and cannot just leave and quit, it is immoral. Even if the slave isn’t forced to do work they don’t want to do, but the master does not let them leave if they want to, it is immoral.

Basically, in my opinion, the only way a slave can be moral is if you are calling a servant a slave.

Or perhaps and “employee”.

There is a slang phrase, “wage slave” where a person needs to works, sometimes for a rotten employer, because they need the income, yet cannot really earn enough to improve their lot and get a better job.

But I digress. I think the best definition, and the one that most people would probably agree on is “involuntary servitude”, no matter how comfortable or unpleasant it may be.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

I have cleaned up this thread as best I could. Either stay on topic or we’ll have to close the thread. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[Galnextdoor]

Slavery is always wrong because it objectifies a human being while taking away their human dignity and stripping them of their ability to exercise their own free will. God created Adam and put him over the animals. He did not create another human being saying that Adam would be superior to another human being.

You can’t own a human being like you own some other object.

St. Paul frequently stated that all people were spiritually equal. All people must be treated with human dignity.

 

[hellopeople]

Slavery is always wrong because it objectifies a human being while taking away their human dignity and stripping them of their ability to exercise their own free will. God created Adam and put him over the animals. He did not create another human being saying that Adam would be superior to another human being.

You can’t own a human being like you own some other object.

St. Paul frequently stated that all people were spiritually equal. All people must be treated with human dignity.

Yet Paul did not condemn slavery, and neither did Jesus for that matter.

 

[Newbie2]

Yes I’ve read it. But I do not recall any passage that refers to Paul owning slaves. Please refresh my memory.

OK, so we’re clear that Paul didn’t own any slaves?

Yet Paul did not condemn slavery, and neither did Jesus for that matter.

But they both condemned cruel and unjust treatment. If slaves weren’t slaves, how would they survive in the culture? There were situations were slaves were freed or “promoted”, let’s not forget that as well.

You don’t know if Paul and Jesus didn’t condemn slavery. It is quite possible that they did, and such words didn’t make it into Scripture. Keep in mind that Paul’s letters and the Gospels were written in a time when slavery was simply a part of culture. The writers had no way of knowing that slavery would eventually evaporate from what we nowadays consider unacceptable.

The key of the Gospel message is that if one owns slaves, be a fair and just owner…which could be extrapolated to freeing your slaves, no? And to the slaves themselves, be good at your assigned tasks, for your reward is not on this earth but in the next.